Akinbele v. South London Family Housing Association [1999] UKEAT 92_99_1902

EAT

Akinbele v. South London Family Housing Association

[1999] UKEAT 92_99_1902 · 1999-02-19

JUDGE PETER CLARK :

The Appellant, Mr Akinbele was employed by the Respondent and its predecessors as a Primary Nurse at their Granville Park Care Home for the Elderly, in Lewisham, from 1 November 1980 until his dismissal on 8 April 1998.

Following that dismissal he brought a complaint of unfair dismissal which was heard and dismissed by an Employment Tribunal sitting at London (South) on 8 and 9 October 1998. He was then represented by Counsel.

On 15 October, the Tribunal's decision with summary reasons was promulgated. We are told that the Appellant did not receive a copy of the summary reasons from his solicitors until 21 October 1998. He then took advice from a law centre and on 12 November he wrote to the Employment Tribunal asking for Extended Reasons for their decisions. By a letter dated 30 November, the Tribunal replied in these terms:

"A chairman of the Tribunals has instructed me to write you. Rule 10(4) of the Employment Tribunal Rules Of Procedure 1993 provides that the reason for the decision of the Tribunal shall be given in summary form except in circumstances set out in sub-paragraph (a) - (d). In particular a party may request extended reasons orally at the hearing, before summary reasons are set out or within 21 days of the date that the summary reasons were sent. No request for Extended reasons and were made at the hearing.

Summary reasons were sent to you on 15th October 1998 and a request for extended reasons was made by letter dated 12 November 1998 (received on 13 November 1998) and is out of time. The Chairman considers that the Summary reasons adequately explain the grounds for the decision of the Tribunal."

By a letter dated 8 December, the Appellant gave notice of his wish to appeal against the Employment Tribunal decision on the ground that it was perverse. He enclosed with that letter the Employment Tribunal's summary reasons.

On 4 January 1999, the Registrar ordered that unless confirmation in writing was received within 7 days that an application had been made to the Employment Tribunal for Extended Reasons for the decision, the Notice of Appeal would be struck out. Rule 3(1)(c) of the EAT Rules provides that every Notice of Appeal should be accompanied by the Tribunal's Extended Reasons for the decision under appeal.

On 6 January, the Appellant wrote to this Tribunal appealing against the Chairman's refusal to provide Extended Reasons for the decision. This is a preliminary hearing held to consider whether or not the appeal against the Chairman's refusal to supply extended reasons raises any arguable point or points of law to go forward to a full appeal hearing. We are not today concerned with the appeal against the substantive decision.

Miss Warren appears on behalf of the Appellant under the ELAAS pro bono scheme and takes two points in relation to the Tribunal's letter of 30 November 1998. First she submits that it is not apparent on the face of the letter that the Tribunal Chairman has considered exercising her discretion granted by Rule 15(1) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure to extend time for providing the Extended Reasons for the substantive decision.

Secondly, she submits that it is unclear what ruling the Chairman has made on the application for Extended Reasons. The letter concludes that the Chairman considers that the summary reasons adequately explain the grounds for the decision of the Tribunal. It is not clear from that submits Miss Warren, whether the Chairman was indicating that the summary reasons could stand as Extended Reasons or otherwise, what decision is being made on the application for Extended Reasons. She submits, and it is the Appellant's case the summary reasons do not adequately explain the grounds for decision bearing in mind the point which the Appellant wishes to take in the substantive appeal.

It seems to us that both of these points are arguable and the case should accordingly proceed to a full appeal hearing. For that purpose, we direct that the case be listed for two hours, category C. There shall be exchange of skeleton arguments between the parties not less than fourteen days before the date fixed for the full appeal hearing, copies of those skeleton arguments to be lodged at this Tribunal at the same time.